[RD] Unhypnotizing Clinton supporters.

Mouthwash

Escaped Lunatic
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
9,368
Location
Hiding
I know, it's evil of me to make yet another election thread with seven or eight floating around on the front page alone, but I had to do it. I do not like how I've been acting lately in conversations regarding Trump. That's a consequence of how certain Clinton supporters (who must go unnamed due to the forum rules) have been acting, but my free time and sanity is draining away, and it's all kind of pointless since I don't even support Trump.

In the interests of exorcising this from my brain until, hopefully, the twentieth of January, I am going to post what I feel is an decent summary of what I've been reading and hearing outside of liberal circles. Just trying to loosen the epistemic closure a bit, ok?

It's from Scott Adams' (creator of Dilbert) blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unhypnotizing-a-clinton-supporter

Today I teach you how to unhypnotize a Clinton supporter.

Keep in mind that the strongest form of persuasion is fear. Clinton’s team of persuaders has convinced her followers that Trump is dangerous. If you remove that part of her spell, Trump wins. Here’s how.

1. Trump’s Tough Talk Inspires violence: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the Project Veritas video of Clinton operatives talking about paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies. The people on the video have been fired, and we haven’t seen violence at Trump rallies since.

2. Temperament: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the video of Clinton ranting “Why aren’t I already fifty points ahead?” She looks either inebriated or deranged. Mention that the people who know Trump personally have reported that he is both smart and sane in person. Even his enemies who know him personally don’t claim he has a temperament problem. If he did, is there any chance we wouldn’t have heard about it by now?

3. Trump might insult foreign leaders into a war: Trump and Putin seem to get along fine. Netanyahu said he could work with Trump. Mexico isn’t likely to start a war over trade, or the wall. Trump says North Korea is China’s problem, which is literally the safest thing you could say. And China’s leaders are adults who know Trump says offensive things now and then. China will pursue its own interests, and none of those interests involve going to war over some words. Likewise, other leaders are adults too. They won’t change their foreign policy over some insults.

5. Trump might start a war: Trump owns buildings and property around the world. As a general rule, people who own a lot of real estate don’t start wars because their own assets are at risk. But Clinton is “sponsored” – via the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees – by defense companies that profit from war. Likewise, Clinton is sponsored by foreign countries whose interests don’t align with American interests. Clinton supported war in Iraq and Libya, and she threatens Russia, just as the money trail suggests she would. Trump talks mostly about having a strong military to avoid war. He gains nothing by war.

6. Alcohol: Normally alcohol would not be a risk factor in picking a president because usually both candidates are social drinkers. But Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage while Clinton tells us she enjoys social drinking. Having a few social drinks is not a problem unless you plan to drive a car…or make a nuclear launch decision. If we don’t trust a social drinker to operate a motor vehicle, can we trust a social drinker to manage a nuclear arsenal?

If you have ever drunk-texted, or received a text from someone who has, you already know how much “social drinking” can influence decisions.

7. Group Violence versus Crazy Individuals: Have you noticed that when you see election-related violence from a group, it is always Clinton supporters? That happened at Trump’s San Jose rally, and it happened with the homeless woman protecting Trump’s star on the Walk of Fame. When Trump supporters do something violent they are usually acting alone, and crazy. When Clinton supporters get violent it comes in the form of mobs who are NOT crazy. That’s the dangerous kind of violence because they are literally Stronger Together.

8. Pacing and Leading: When normal politicians change their minds we label it flip-flopping or – more kindly – “evolving” in their thinking. When a Master Persuader does it, you are seeing pacing and leading, which is a major tool of persuasion. Pacing involves matching people – in this case emotionally – and later using that bond to lead them. We see Trump doing this often.

a. Trump paced his base by saying he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Once he had his base on his side emotionally, he led to them to his current policy of deporting only the people who committed crimes while here. Have you heard any Trump supporters complain about it lately?

b. Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

c. Early in the primaries Trump paced the racists in the Republican party by not disavowing them as clearly and as loudly as even the racists thought he would. Since then he has led Republicans to think that some form of a “New Deal” for African-Americans might be worth a look.

d. At the Republican National Convention, Trump used his emotional connection to his supporters to declare he was the strongest voice to protect the LGBTQ community. Republicans stood and cheered.

Readers of this blog might recall that months ago I predicted that Trump would soften his immigration proposals. That’s because I saw him from the start as a Master Persuader, not a crazy person, and not a common flip-flopper.

In my opinion, Trump might be the safest president we have ever had. He can lead the dark parts of his base toward the light (as Nixon went to China) and he has no incentive for war. Claims about his “temperament” are mostly about his penchant for insults, and that isn’t a mortal danger to anyone.

And there you have your formula for unhypnotizing a Clinton supporter who is mostly worried about Trump being dangerous.

This isn't a complete list, but I think it's adequate.

Finally: I'd like to predict here and now that Trump will endorse same-sex marriage at some point (likely in a fashion more palatable to right-wingers than diagnosing them with a literal phobia). If you think that's impossible, think of marriage becoming an entirely religious term and all state unions being labeled as "civil unions." That's what a canny politician, which Trump certainly is, would suggest.
 
Last edited:
Don't threads, especially Red Diamond ones, need to actually put forth a question or argument? What is the point of this thread?
 
Don't threads, especially Red Diamond ones, need to actually put forth a question or argument? What is the point of this thread?

There's quite a bit of argumentation in the quote, and I wanted to be sure to preempt any flamewar.
 
I don't think this will do much to convince people of the virtue of a Trump presidency. Clinton had her flaws, but I think many people ultimately voted against Trump, not for Clinton (and vice versa). As such, I don't think many people will be convinced that Trump was okay by listing off Clinton's flaws. After all, 20% of Clinton voters voted for her despite the fact that they felt she was not honest and trustworthy.
Maybe that's not the purpose of this, but then I'm not sure what the purpose is.
 
It really isn't. As I said, I don't support Trump. It's just that I don't see him as any worse than Clinton.
 
I don't think one needs to work very hard to pop the bubble of Clinton's image. For many people, the halcyon imaginings of her will fade pretty quickly.
 
Read xkcd lately?
 
Thankfully not lately, at least not until you posted the link. Damn you for inducing me to click on that stupid site.
 
Considering the author, and considering the slowly changing nature of the people I call neighbors, and who they voted for: this is a supremely dangerous post. It encourages me to hope.
 
Agreed. It IS inappropriate to start yet another Trump thread with another 7 or 8 already out there.

Also, the subject is loaded, starting an RD thread called "unhypnotizing Clinton supporters". It's a passing flame remark, followed by, "Boo! This is an RD thread, you're not allowed to fire back."

You can call us under a spell on one of the other threads.
 
Agreed. It IS inappropriate to start yet another Trump thread with another 7 or 8 already out there..
This thread is about Clinton, not Trump.
 
I don't think one needs to work very hard to pop the bubble of Clinton's image. For many people, the halcyon imaginings of her will fade pretty quickly.

I don't think very many people had halcyon images of her. We did what these days in politics is apparently unthinkable - set aside our misgivings about her to recognize that electing her was for the greater good. Even if the greater good amounted to nothing more than assuring Latino schoolchildren aren't bullied because of their race, and that girls don't have to put up with being grabbed.
 
Don't threads, especially Red Diamond ones, need to actually put forth a question or argument? What is the point of this thread?

The point was obvious from the title. More of the same, this time with an RD.
 
It really isn't. As I said, I don't support Trump. It's just that I don't see him as any worse than Clinton.


Then you clearly don't understand the issues. Clinton, for all her personal flaws, isn't really wrong on the issues. Trump, for all his personal flaws, is wrong on all of the issues. But is so in a way which appeals to a great many people despite that. It's not about objectivity. It's about perceptions and emotions.
 
Of course its about perception and emotions. Elections are decided on perceptions and emotions. Determining where Clinton went wrong with perception and emotions enables future candidates who may share her position on the issues to craft their presentations in such a manner that the candidates are more compelling to the electorate.
 
I know, it's evil of me to make yet another election thread with seven or eight floating around on the front page alone, but I had to do it. I do not like how I've been acting lately in conversations regarding Trump. That's a consequence of how certain Clinton supporters (who must go unnamed due to the forum rules) have been acting, but my free time and sanity is draining away, and it's all kind of pointless since I don't even support Trump.

In the interests of exorcising this from my brain until, hopefully, the twentieth of January, I am going to post what I feel is an decent summary of what I've been reading and hearing outside of liberal circles. Just trying to loosen the epistemic closure a bit, ok?

It's from Scott Adams' (creator of Dilbert) blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unhypnotizing-a-clinton-supporter



This isn't a complete list, but I think it's adequate.

Finally: I'd like to predict here and now that Trump will endorse same-sex marriage at some point (likely in a fashion more palatable to right-wingers than diagnosing them with a literal phobia). If you think that's impossible, think of marriage becoming an entirely religious term and all state unions being labeled as "civil unions." That's what a canny politician, which Trump certainly is, would suggest.

I'm sorry Mouthwash, but a well reasoned argument or even a Red Diamond post won't get people to stop fearing Trump.
Even Scott Adams would admit as much.

Trump has committed far too many crimes, like saying things, to ever be anything other than evil.
Now please sign this petition to get the Electoral College Electors to pick Hillary as President instead of Trump.
It has 2.4 million signatures already.
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19
 
Now that's a petition that stands a decent chance of landing me in a literal crossfire, should it succeed. And I don't think I'd be alone in that regard.
 
Hah, one of my best friends shared that petition on facebook. I almost posted something but was like, nope, I want to keep her as a friend.

(edit: I should probably note that my opposition to that petition is about how stupid the concept is of trying to overturn our system of selecting presidents by convincing no fewer than 38 Republican electors to switch to Clinton. Not even like McMullin or Romney or Rubio or someone, but Clinton.)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom